yes 100%. I once read a great quote:
“Teach children one religion and you indoctrinate them. Teach them many religions and you inoculate them.” — Unknown
gonna transport this quote over to my facebook.. gonna steal it
::maniacal hand rubbing commences::
@btroje inoculate them against brainwashing - if they see so many religions they have to realise they can't all be true, and that the one you believe in is almost certainly geographic.
As a jr high social studies teacher, I do teach many religions from around the world to my students. I of course, can not advocate my personal beliefs, but I do enjoy that we compare and contrast them and they see the places they overlap and that there are many older than the one they have been taught here in the US. I try to be subtle but I point out the overlapping areas and hope it gets them thinking....
I agree. History of religion and the origin of traditions as well as the common themes and motives should be a series of courses in schools.
That would mean that you would be teaching them 100s of religions, taking up massive amounts of time, on something that has no practical use. That would be a waste of an education, as it would be the only education that they would get.
Teaching as a cultural/political historical phenomenon rather than as a belief system makes sense to me.
@AKS74UPBS1 Don't act stupid. Do you think that the Dutch don't realize that? They are nót stupid. Isn't teaching them about the major religions enough too make them realize that if you want to be respected, you also have to give respect?
@AKS74UPBS1 Not teaching them 100s of religions but teaching them ABOUT 100s of religions. Most kids would surely then see that they all can't be true therfore none of them are likely to be true. I can't think of a better way to educate children.
Education is the key to many of or ills. People need to know about the option of no religion as well. I had a comment on facebook from a religious person who could not believe I have morals or a social conscience.
I agree in that it would be taught from in a anthropological, historical & sociological context.
I really like this! I think that teaching a variety of religions provides not only different value sets, but also entire different ways of thinking (especially in punishment, long term vs short term reward and punishment)
Absolutely! But it should be taught along with every other religion as a theory, NOT as fact.
Well, maybe calling it a theory is a bit more than I would credit religion with but hypothesis might be a better word.
Even hypothesis is a stretch; though it's closer, it implies that the claim is falsifiable, which of course it isn't. There's nothing scientific about it, and we shouldn't give it more credence then it deserves by labeling it with scientific terminology.
Shouldn't be taught in the science classroom at all. Work it in somewhere with social studies, history (not biblical history but history of origins) but yes alongside many other religions and ideas but not as a fact. Philosophy would also have a lot of valid use for religion.
I'm a supply teacher, and when I have to teach R.E. I always preface my remarks with "some people believe that....." and then whatever I'm supposed to be teaching them. And I always finish with "so what do you think?". And depending on how ludicrous the story/religion is I might even say "Can you actually believe that some people think that's true????????" and burst into laughter. Serves them right.
Yes, it is necessary to understand history; religion is the motivation of countless wars, genocide, imperialism, persecutions, etc. But no religion should be taught as "truth".
I use to teach high school social studies, and in world geography, it did talked about the three main religions. It is done as history and in a comparative way. No one religion was made to appear right or wrong, or better or worse. I think it's up to the individual to decide. The purpose of school is to teach various things in the hope that it creates critical thinking, so students can work through concepts and make decisions on what works best for them.
What do you mean by "the three main" ? To me that would be Buddhism, Hinduism and the "religion of the Book", or Abrahamic, which includes Jewish, Christian and Moslem. Or, if you count the Abrahamic as three, then I count more than three main ones...?
@ZebZaman if you're going on numbers of followers (in millions), the big 3 are:
Christianity 2,430, Islam 1,800, Hinduism 1,150. Buddhism is 520, just above Folk religions 400.
I have no problem with religion being taught from a historical perspective, including how various religions have been (and continue to be) drivers of history, both positively and negatively. What should not happen is any sort of indoctrination regarding the tenents of a particular religious view.
No. Separation of church and state is VERY important to me.
I hate communicating through text because so much of communicating is with body language and the nuance and meaning can be easily misinterpreted. I am not criticising your view, but rather, tossing out another aspect that you may not be considering.
If the question were "Should religion be promoted in schools," I would agree but the study of theology isn't a subject that should be left off the curriculum, and it isn't a question of church-state separation. If you disagree with this point, I would very much like to hear your views.
I agree with that, Church and state SHOULD be kept separate. It stops society from being too heavily influenced by one singular Religion, and stops things like mandatory Religious belief. BUT I think it should be taught in schools. Religion is a big part of society, and has a heavy variety. Teaching students about the various religions can help prepare them for the inevitable day that they meet someone with an varying viewpoint. The trick is that they should ALL be at least introduced, make it its own separate class. Don't teach math or science or english from a religious standpoint, but rather teach Religion from an unbiased one.
And yet in the US you have much more religious extremism (mainly christian) than we do here in the UK, where religion is taught in all schools. How do you explain that?
The goal would be not to teach religion of any sort, but the impact religion has had on human societal development. Religion, like it or not, has had a huge impact on this planet. Ensuring an unbiased presentation might be difficult.
It is one thing to teach people ABOUT religion. One can hardly understand history and culture without some understanding of religion. It is something else for public resources to be used to indoctrinate.
I think that the problem most people (myself included) have with religion being taught in public school is that Christians want the religious concept of creationism taught in science class alongside the Theory of Evolution. Since most Christians rely on their bible for their education as well as their belief system, they have a misunderstanding about what a scientific theory actually is. They take the term "theory" to be a misnomer, believing that evolution is as unproved as creationism. Anyone who believes the two to be on a comparable level is incorrect, however, as the established theory of evolution is one which has withstood the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific method and been proved. Creationism has not, and thus has no business being taught as a scientific principle. The only place for religion in public school is in a theology class, preferably one that teaches about all religions and doesn't only focus on one.
Only in the USA, mostly. In Europe no one even considers teaching creationism "alongside" evolution. It sounds like teaching the earth centred world view or even flat earth alongside the ( locally) heliocentric view. Europe seem sto have a more grown up version of Christianity. Why I feel in Europe it would be easier from me to still be part of Christian life as opposed to totally secular. But I am not living in Europe, only come from there.
That's horrifying ! No that wouldn't happen in the UK - it would be laughed out of class.
@ZebZaman - I'm disappointed you still have a yearning to be "part of christian life". I find that very sad - not believing is fantastic!
@Agnostic1 no reason to be disappointed. I'm not going to be part of any service soon. I guess what I'm saying would take longer to elaborate, I'm no atheist. But there isn't much in terms of together celebration of anything that I feel totally at home or at ease with. But some of european Christian expression to me is a lot less hideous than what I've seen from some of these tele-mega-churches in the US. I sit or walk in nature and breathe. That's my "church" service. Among all other stuff I do. My idea of God isn't that far removed from what atheists simply call "reality". ( not if you get deeper into it... what exactly IS real?) I think in our day and time being an atheist is a perfectly valid way to be. But I'm pretty happy with my take on reality.
I don't support teaching religion in primary and high school. I had religious education as a youth and it was more a promotion of Christianity with extremely limited emphasis on other faiths. At university level, I was very pleased taking a Religions of the World course that focused on all faiths with no prejudice and even focused on agnostics and atheist.
no way I ever going to support brainwash the kids with religion in schools.
I agree with you. It is the worse thing you can do, to young minds.
I think we had it lucky our religious studies tutor actually gave us the ability to debate our views. I remember watching the life of Brian in class and actually having an open discussion of how we thought then we watched the documentary about how it was viewed as blasphemous and had a further debate, one of my favourite memories of school
I have no problem with teaching kids about the different major religions as long as they are all taught as different religions, not one of them as being "True".
Public tax funded schools, should however, not teach a class only about one religion, especially if it is being taught as "Truth".
Depending on the context I'm not opposed. I actually find more atheists are well educated on religion than believers are. We don't tend to cherry pick what we want out of the books
@tonia - there are ways to teach it, so that children's minds are opened to the possibilities of judging for themselves whether it's nonsense. Your idea just makes kids easier to indoctrinate when they go to church/mosque/synagogue.
@GoldenDoll children and young people who are ignorant to the major religions, their customs, history, and current impact are... Ignorant! Ignorance, deliberate ignorance is not the way to raise young people. Knowledge of the common world religions will help a young person in many aspects of adulthood, including understanding politics and social policy, the world stage, business dealings, inter personal interactions, all sorts of areas where to be ignorant is to be at a disadvantage.
@GoldenDoll thank you Goldendoll. Having a working knowledge of what these religions are is far different than indoctrination. I recall learning about Greek mythology in school, but wasn’t forced to believe in it. Education is the key to understanding why theists believe what they do.
All religions yes, in mythology class.
But also, "Don't pray in my schools and I won't think in your churches".
In a comparative religions class or in historical context? Yes, of course. Ignoring religion as a part of the shaping of society and people would be ignorant. But taught as doctrine? Absolutely not.
Strictly from an academic perspective, with all of the contradictions and evil it brings. No leaning towards belief, just a cold, factual class.
There is a huge difference between education and indoctrination.
Unfortunately the religious tend to see the second as the first.
As a part of human history religion should be taught, but not just one religion, a broad overview of religions especially how they have evolved, each appropriating myths from earlier religions. Honesty must prevail, the brutal history of religions must be included.
In theory, absolutely. But all religions and the history. In practice, my guess is that in many parts of the US, it will degenerate into trying to focus on preaching one religion.
As part a of history and culture, I believe so, but this should include all religions.
Things such as religious dogma, intelligent design or biblical history as being factual and accurate, no. Religion should never be enforced or pushed on students in any way and should remain completely secular. I went to High School in the 90's and had more than one teacher impose their religious beliefs on me. I wasn't very happy about it.
Private religious schools are a different issue.
As part of history, or as a comparative religion course, yes absolutely. We atheists and agnostics should not be so fearful of the possibility our kids might be lured into some cult that we deny them the opportunity to learn about their cultural heritage. And the monotheistic religions have played an immensely important role in shaping that. Literature studies, for example, without reference to the bible would be almost unthinkable. Nearly every important work in any European language refers back to it in some way, as does much of the rest of our artistic heritage, to say nothing of our legal codes etc. We are, so to speak, stuck with it, but it does nothing to undermine the strength of the atheist position to acknowledge the fact.
I like that I may have to use that at some point